The types are not mutually exclusive. While "Meeting" was not a word in the old Type 1, even if it had been that would not mean that a name containing that word couldn't also be Type 6 (a name containing the entire name of the higher body). The presence or absence of the name of the higher body is not a factor for Type 1.

There was not 100% agreement on making "Meeting" a Type 1 term. However, the inclusion did not generate any discussion in CC:DA, either on the wiki or at the meeting in Anaheim. While it does not necessarily imply subordination, it is felt that it is best treated subordinately whenever it is, in fact, subordinate. (Naturally, in the case of a meeting that is independent, the name cannot be treated subordinately.)

--K. Randall, 7/10/12

It's not surprising that there was not much discussion, since there wasn't much time to digest a 63-page report. RDA 11.2.2.5.4 under "Conferences, congresses, meetings, etc." discusses the treatment of meeting names. It is clear that Meeting is not a "term that by definition implies administrative subordination." Meetings were adequately handled by the current type 3 and type 6. For terms that imply subordination, I would be happy to stick with the list in LCPS 11.2.2.14. --John Hostage 06:49, 11 July 2012 (PDT)

I don't think "meeting" fits very comfortably into Type 1 - it makes more sense to me where it is now, as a Type 3 term - but I understand what the Task Force is trying to do. If we want to eliminate Type 6 but still have all subordinate meetings entered subordinately, for reasons good enough to justify rejecting the principle of Representation in this case, the alternative to this approach would be to create a whole new category for meetings, conferences, etc. (a new Type 6??). --Robert J. Rendall 14:55, 17 July 2012 (PDT)

Type 2: Combine the instructions for Type 2 general bodies (11.2.2.14) and Type 2 government bodies (11.2.2.19) with the instructions for Type 1 in 11.2.2.14. Eliminate the provision that the name of the higher body be required for identification of the subordinate body.

AACR2 was a major advance over earlier codes because it aimed to enter most persons and corporate bodies under the names by which they are known and which are likely to be familiar to users. Subordinate entry of corporate bodies was avoided except when it seemed to be necessary, such as a name that really implied subordination or a name that wouldn't be clear without the higher body. That's why type 2 was subordinate only if necessary to identify the body. That solves the problem of names like Royal Commission on Education in Ontario. The proposal will cause a lot of names that were entered directly to be entered subordinately. Subordinate entry is inherently artificial. --John Hostage 13:03, 13 July 2012 (PDT)

I agree with John and would recommend reconsidering the changes affecting type 2 proposed above. Increasing the number of names entered subordinately seems like a move in the wrong direction. Re: the question posed in the Task Force report at the end of the discussion of type 2, I would say that bodies whose names imply they are “part of another” are a subset of those whose names imply “administrative subordination,” but that doesn't mean we can't continue to make this distinction and require subordination under all conditions only for the first category if it suits us to do so. --Robert J. Rendall 12:52, 16 July 2012 (PDT)

I do not understand how the distinction can be made clear enough so that it can be applied with any degree of consistency. Please explain how a typical cataloger will see these terms as implying administrative subordination:

while at the same time seeing these terms as not implying administrative subordination:

Department, Division, Section, Unit

--K. Randall, 7/16/12

As I said above, they all imply administrative subordination. But Department, Division, Section, Unit also by definition imply that they are "part" of the higher body, and that's the definition of type 1. We've been making this distinction for years and it makes as much sense as it ever did. Which doesn't necessarily mean that we need to keep making it, but John's point is that it may serve a purpose here. --Robert J. Rendall 14:36, 16 July 2012 (PDT)

How can something "imply administrative subordination" without also implying being "part of another"? I simply cannot understand this, although I can understand the converse (implying being part of another but not implying administrative subordination). But even the latter would be difficult to distinguish consistently. And I do not see at all what the purpose is of making this distinction. And why in the world should "administrative subordination" be less likely to result in subordinate entry than simply "being part of another"? The argument "it makes as much sense as it ever did" is not a strong one to me; if it didn't make sense then, why should it make sense now? The word "Department" is almost the epitome of implying administrative subordination, yet it's a Type 1 word (only "part of another"). K. Randall, 7/16/12

You have to consider the full rule in both types in AACR2. Type 1 contains words that imply the body is part of another. In other words they will always be entered subordinately. Words in type 2 imply administrative subordination, which is not as strong a condition as being part of something, and names with these words can stand alone, e.g. National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education. So yes, words in type 1 do more than imply administrative subordination; they come right out and say it. For example, when the IFLA Committee on Cataloguing changed its name to IFLA Section on Cataloguing, it went from a type 2 to a type 1 name, and from direct entry to subordinate entry. It may be a subtle difference, but with the help of the list of terms in the LCRI, it's not that difficult. The purpose of making the distinction is to allow direct entry in more cases than would otherwise be possible. It always made sense to me. --John Hostage 07:18, 17 July 2012 (PDT)

John Hostage has helped me to better understand the difference between type 1 and type 2, and convinced me that we should retain the distinction between them, as well as the provision to enter a body subordinately only if the name of the higher body is necessary for identification. -P. Dragon 7/26/12

In the International Cataloging Principles, the only section relating to this is in 6.3.4.3.2, which says: "when the corporate name implies subordination, or subordinate function, or is insufficient to identify the subordinate body, the authorized access point should begin with the name of the superior body." The proposed revision comes much closer to this than does the current RDA. If the distinction between the current types 1 and 2 were to be retained, it would be very helpful to see some suggested rewordings (not discussions, but actual reworded instructions) that make the distinction clear and understandable. – K. Randall, 7/26/12

Currently, Type 1 is defined as "a name containing a term that by definition implies that the body is part of another (e.g., Department, Division, Section, Branch)." The dictionary definition of words like "division" and "section" means that these units are part of a larger organization that also contains other divisions, sections or subunits of one kind or another. It doesn't matter whether you think these terms also imply administrative subordination or not - if they fit into this category, you handle them as instructed here. If not, you go on to test them against the other types. I don't have any suggestions for ways to make this clearer and more understandable, and I think the instruction can stand as it is, but I'll be happy to respond to any suggested rewordings that will achieve the same results. --Robert J. Rendall 11:31, 26 July 2012 (PDT)

Type 3: Incorporate the instructions for Type 3 government bodies (11.2.2.19) into the instructions for general bodies (11.2.2.14).

Type 4: Incorporate the instructions for Type 4 government bodies (11.2.2.19) into the instructions for general bodies (11.2.2.14). Omit the provision regarding the name of the government.

Type 5: No change required.

Type 6: Eliminate 11.2.2.14, Type 6.

As illustrated by the discussion of Stanford University Archives versus the NLRB's "Library" below, the inconsistent results depending on interpretation of typography etc. described in the task force report's discussion of Type 6 will not be eliminated by removing this type alone. And the instructions for Type 6 are not completely irrational; in a 1967 card catalog, it would have seemed absurdly pedantic to file the Trustees of the British Library (an example from AACR[1], where this was called Type 1!) under T, rather than flipping the heading and filing under British Library. Trustees. But I agree that in our current environment it's time to let go of this one and just let the principle of Representation determine the form of access point for these names. --Robert J. Rendall 13:54, 17 July 2012 (PDT)

C) Government officials (11.2.2.21)

Reword the instructions so the restriction applies to all levels of government in post-medieval times.

D) Legislative subcommittees (11.2.2.22.2-11.2.2.22.3)

Revise the instructions to have subcommittees and subordinate units entered under the name of the parent committee, regardless of country.

E) General structure of 11.2.2.13-11.2.2.31

Remove the general instructions for subordinate religious bodies (11.2.2.30), but not the specific instructions in 11.2.2.30.1-11.2.2.30.3. Add types to 11.2.2.14 referencing the types of religious bodies covered in 11.2.2.28-11.2.2.31. Add a phrase at the beginning of 11.2.2.15 stating that the instructions apply unless other instructions are given in later numbers.

Move the instructions for Catholic dioceses, etc. (11.2.2.30.2) into 11.2.2.30.1, as an exception.

Issues Which May Warrant Further Consideration

Courts (11.2.2.24)

Religious officials (11.2.2.29.2)

Examples

Please comment on examples that seem to be incorrect or inappropriate (e.g., they illustrate the wrong instruction) or insufficient. Virtually all existing examples have been retained, being only moved or modified when the instruction has been changed. It is understood that the examples will need to be pared down, but our energy right now should be spent on verifying the examples that are there (and supplying examples in the rare places where examples are inadequate). Examples can be weeded at a later time.

PLEASE DISCUSS EXAMPLES IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, and include a reference to the proposed new instruction number under which the example is given.

American Battle Monuments Commission (11.2.2.13)

11.2.2.13: why is American Battle Monuments Commission not in new type 1?

Right, this is an agency of the executive branch of the U.S. and should be moved to 11.2.2.14, Type 1 as:

United States. American Battle Monuments Commission

Name: American Battle Monuments Commission

--K. Randall, 7/10/12

Of course, if we retain the distinction between type 1 and type 2, it would not be a type 1. It would be a type 2 (commission is a type 2 term, right?). And how does American Battle Monuments Commission imply administrative subordination and require the name of the higher body for identification? I don't think it does. -P. Dragon 7/26/12

The word "commission" by itself implies administrative subordination (it makes it sound like someone commissioned them to deal with battle monuments). But the name of the higher body is not necessary for identification in this case, so the name falls under current Type 2, which I would like to keep, and can be entered directly if we do. --Robert J. Rendall 11:44, 26 July 2012 (PDT)

The general definition of "Auxiliary" would seem to imply subordination. There are very many instances of names with "Auxiliary" entered subordinately under AACR2. Bear in mind that we must consider both the nature of the body and the name--for example, a name may not be Type 1 even though it contains a term that would fit into Type 1. The body itself must be subordinate, not merely have a name that looks like it could be subordinate. (For example, "American Committee on the History of the Second World War" is not a subordinate body, even though it contains a word that might imply subordination.) In this case, there is a word that implies subordination AND the body is subordinate.

--K. Randall, 7/10/12

The American Legion Auxiliary seems to be an independent organization, affiliated with but not part of the American Legion. --John Hostage 15:23, 10 July 2012 (PDT)

Well, this is about subordinate or related bodies. The body to which "American Legion Auxiliary" is auxiliary is "American Legion", so it would seem to properly fit Type 1, even if there is not a formal hierarchical relationship between the two bodies. --K. Randall, 7/10/12

Type 1 has been revised to read "a term that by definition implies administrative subordination," which is much narrower than "related". Auxiliary does not by definition imply subordination to me. The OED definition for the noun is "One who renders help or gives assistance; a helper, assistant, confederate, ally; also, that which gives help, a source or means of assistance." One of the only problems with the current type 6 is that names like American Legion Auxiliary are not entered directly. There is no advantage in moving it to another place to artificially continue entering it subordinately. --John Hostage 09:18, 11 July 2012 (PDT)

Entering the American Legion Auxiliary as American Legion. Auxiliary is an example of the sort of strangely artificial heading that we ought to move away from. Let's take advantage of this revision process to do that. --Robert J. Rendall 15:21, 17 July 2012 (PDT)

Australian Labor Party. Tasmanian Branch (11.2.2.17)

11.2.2.17: Tasmanian Branch not parallel situation; instruction calls for omitting “Tasmanian”. I would think this rule was created for the peculiar nature of U.S. political parties.

Looking at this more closely, I cannot even find any correspondence between the instruction and the examples in the original! It says, "Record the name of a state or local unit of a political party in the United States as a subdivision of the authorized access point representing the party." But what the examples seem to show are units of state or local parties, because the primary part of the access point (110 $a, in MARCspeak) is a state party. The states are given as qualifiers for the name of the highest unit, not as subdivisions. Can anyone explain this?

--K. Randall, 7/10/12

The original rule (AACR2 24.16A) is an extreme example of "case law" cataloging but at least it is correctly illustrated by the examples given below it. In RDA the instruction was garbled (in an attempt to rationalize it?) but the examples still illustrate application of the original AACR2 rule. --Robert J. Rendall 15:05, 10 July 2012 (PDT)

If this rule is still desired, then perhaps it should be changed back to the original wording from AACR2:

Enter a state or local unit of a political party in the United States under the name of the party followed by the state or local name in parentheses and then the name of the unit. Omit from the name of the unit any indication of the name of the party or the state or locality.

--K. Randall, 7/10/12

Let's just omit this whole instruction (11.2.2.17) and enter the Missouri Democratic State Committee under its own name. --Robert J. Rendall 11:48, 26 July 2012 (PDT)

11.2.2.13: why is Copyright Board Canada not subordinate when Board is used otherwise as subordinate (e.g. Hereford Diocesan Board of Education; Vancouver School Board; National Labor Relations Board)?

Since "Meeting" is one of the Type 1 words, this appears to be in the correct place.

--K. Randall, 7/10/12

It has been shown above that Meeting should not be a Type 1 word. It does not by definition imply administrative subordination. --John Hostage 09:18, 11 July 2012 (PDT)

Ontario. Royal Commission on Education in Ontario (11.2.2.14, Type 1)

Why not Ontario. Royal Commission on Education? (“Omit from the subdivision the name or abbreviation of the name of the higher or related body in noun form unless the omission would result in a name that does not make sense.”)

I would say that here "in Ontario" is describing the scope of the commission, not identifying the higher body. We wouldn't truncate the name if the heading was Ontario. Royal Commission on Education in Northern Ontario. Or (I keep coming back in and adding to this comment) maybe the logic is that you're only told to omit the noun, leaving you here with Ontario. Royal Commission on Education in, which "does not make sense." --Robert J. Rendall 15:50, 10 July 2012 (PDT)

That can't be it. Cultural Development Authority of King County becomes King County (Wash.). Cultural Development Authority. --John Hostage 09:18, 11 July 2012 (PDT)

Research & Advisory Services (11.2.2.14, Type 2)

new type 2: Research & Advisory Services should show “not” for contrast; what is this part of?

There is no "Not" part of this example, because it is an independent body. There is no higher body under which it could be entered, and that is part of the point of the example. This example is a replacement for "Research and Training Institute", which had no justification in the NACO file. There is a NACO record for "Research and Training Institute (Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for Aged)" which is a subordinate body.

--K. Randall, 7/10/12

All these rules are about subordinate bodies and how to decide on the access point. If it's an independent body, there is no choice and no decision to make, so the example has no point. --John Hostage 15:23, 10 July 2012 (PDT)

Then "Human Resources Center" would also have to go. If anything, perhaps we should add explanations to these. I do think they are helpful to include, to show that not all "generic" or "subordinate-sounding" names are subordinate or related bodies. --K. Randall, 7/10/12

The example of Research and Training Institute example probably did refer to Research and Training Institute (Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for Aged). The example shows the name before the application of 11.13.1.4. Oddly, the Human Resources Center (an independent body) also had a Research and Training Institute, entered subordinately in the authority file. --John Hostage 09:18, 11 July 2012 (PDT)

Actually, the NACO heading for "Research and Training Institute" is "Human Resources Center (Albertson, N.Y.). Research and Training Institute", and directly contradicts the example in AACR2 24.13, Type 3. (Ironically, however, it does seem to follow the actual instructions in that rule.) The examples in AACR2 for "In case of doubt" don't make any sense to me. --K. Randall, 7/16/12

St. John's College Library (11.2.2.14, Type 2)

I continue to have a problem with the St. John’s College Library example. I find it hard to distinguish between “Research Institute” in type 2 and “Library” which was taken from type 6 and is now entered directly. Isn’t a library really another type of research institute? Also, if we are using “real” examples (as the Examples Committee tried to do), then St. John’s College Library at the University of Oxford requires a qualifier to distinguish it from the St. John’s College Library at the University of Cambridge. K. Winzer, 7/26/2012

Well, at least the library at St. John's College in Annapolis, Md. has a different name, "Annapolis Greenfield Library". ;) I also feel uncomfortable about this example. It could be qualified, as "St. John's College Library (University of Oxford)". Or, could it fit into Type 1, or Type 2 (although that seems limited to "educational" parent bodies) or a new type? The problem with Type 1 is that the word "Library" doesn't really seem to imply the body is part of or subordinate to another body. And it's not really (new) Type 2, because names falling into this type lack any indication of the name of the higher body. Of course, Type 2 is itself a tricky one, because whether something is Type 2 or no type at all sometimes depends very much on which part of the resource the cataloger is taking the name from, and how the name is presented (including typography). If a new type were to be created, how could that be defined? -- K. Randall, 7/26/12

Isn't this the same misunderstanding that I made and Kevin corrected right below under Stanford University Archives? For St. John's College Library, the whole four-word string is attested in sources as the name of the library, so it can be entered directly (whether or not it needs to be qualified to distinguish it from other places with the same name). For the Research Institute, "Research Institute" is what you see on your sources. You know it's run by the American Dental Association, but you don't actually have "American Dental Association Research Institute" or "ADA Research Institute" presented like that on your sources anywhere. So the actual attested name is general in nature and you have to enter it subordinately under American Dental Association to identify it properly. If you had only "Library" attested for the library at St. John's College, you would do the same thing. (Don't try justifying this distinction to catalog users, but it is the logic we've been using.) --Robert J. Rendall 12:03, 26 July 2012 (PDT)